Title
IX
of the Civil Rights Act (1972) prohibits discrimination based on “sex” and it
was ‘originally’ intended to protect females from differential treatment in the
field of education [esp. sports activities]. The legislation, as it is
currently interpreted does not apply to someone who “self-identifies” as a
particular gender or no gender at all. The law would have to be amended to
include “gendered/non-gendered” persons for it to be legally enforceable; and
even then, it would indemnify Christian or other religious institutions. The
First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise [of religion] thereof. Any Christian organization, parochial school
or institute of higher learning engaging in the functioning of their
responsibility, in practicing and teaching their religious traditions in
faithful commitment to the Bible as the inspired word of God is protected under
the Constitution.
This
is not to ignore the fact that some individuals among the community of faith
are not welcoming to LGBTQ individuals and show extreme intolerance, bigotry,
discrimination, and the love of Jesus Christ is certainly absent in their
behaviors. Having admitted this, though, any believer has the right to express
whatever they feel but the institution itself cannot be blamed for the actions
of a few misguided, insecure, neurotic, over-zealous, and fanatical
troublemakers. Be that as it may, one’s religious convictions cannot be ignored
as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby
Lobby case. In June 2013 the nation’s highest Court upheld the ruling by
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In that decision the Justices agreed that
co-founders David and Barbara Green were not required to provide against
their religious beliefs (practices) insurance coverage for prescription
drugs or medical devices that could be used by female employees who wanted to
get an abortion. The green’s argued, and quite successfully I might add, that
forcing them to include the provision in the company insurance plan
“substantially” burdened their religious belief in violation of federal law-
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
RFRA
(1993??), passed into law by Congress, prohibits any government agency,
department, or official of the United States or any State government from “substantially”
burdening a person’s exercise of religion – even if the burden results from
a rule of general applicability, “except” the government may burden a person’s
exercise of religion “only” if it demonstrates [can demonstrate] that the
application of the burden to the person [organization/institution??]
·
furthers
a compelling government interest [NOTE:
not the same thing as ‘substantial’ as it pertains to a “suspect class];
·
and
is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.
In the case of Hobby Lobby, I believe Justice Breyer opined, “Americans do not lose their religious freedom when they run a family business.” So, if Christian owners of a business that has a secular activity can be protected from government intrusion under RFRA [and the First Amendment . . . emphasis mine], then what about the same should be for Christian and all other institutions whose activities serve a religious function? To punish these schools or threaten with punitive action, when as with Antigone by the poet Sophocles, one must be guided by a higher law [law of conscience or to deity], would be obscene indeed, and not worthy of our founding principles.
776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 6, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
